safe_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: reference checking, refusal unless force=true, preview vs apply mode. This gives the agent a complete understanding of what the tool does and its safety properties.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, with the core action and key conditions front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or extra information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the core behavior is covered, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of references when refused) and does not explain the purpose of the undocumented parameters. For a tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent with unanswered questions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds context for 'force' and 'apply' parameters (reference check and preview behavior). However, it does not address the three undocumented parameters (projectPath, backend, maxResults), leaving gaps for an 8-parameter tool with 63% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes a named declaration and emphasizes its safety mechanism of refusing deletion when references exist. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename or insert_after_symbol, which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context, including preview mode by default and when to use force=true. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.